11/14/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2001 Page 3 • the CUP as well as the interim use permit. The CUP amendment did include an expansion of the production building and included the batch plant that was 80' high. • Staff advised that the conditions attached to the 1997 approvals did not specifically distinguish between the two permits —the conditional use permit and the interim use permit. The interim use permit only covered the northern 20 acres which was zoned LI. The conditional use permit covered the entire property. One can infer that conditions related to storage were intended to apply to the northern area. However, there had been differing interpretations voiced regarding which conditions apply where. Staff reviewed the conditions approved in 1997 and Molin's request that conditions 11 a, 13c, and 13e be eliminated. With regard to noise standards, staff noted the excerpts from MPCA rules as listed with comments in the staff report. Staff noted that a test must be able to determine if the specified decibel level was exceeded for 10% of the time for one hour, or for 50% of the time for one hour. Daytime was defined as 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, night time as 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Molin had a noise measurement analysis performed in October 2000 by Wenck Associates. On October 24, 2000, the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am and from 5:30 am to 6:30 am. On October 25, 2000 the firm took readings from 4:30 am to 5:30 am. The readings indicated no violation of MPCA noise rules during those times. MPCA did state in a conversation with City staff that if a test was conducted by established methods, MPCA typically accepted the results of the test. Staff advised that neighbors were not satisfied by the Wenck analysis. Staff contacted the MPCA to see if MPCA would conduct the analysis. This was possible, but there was a waiting period of several months. Instead, the City hired a noise analysis consultant to perform another analysis. Staff noted the memo from the Environmental Specialist, on August 29, 2001 the Environmental Board tabled the project pending; submission of landscape plan, tree inventory, Rice Creek Watershed's TWAFFA requirement information, lighting plan, an understanding of chemical use on the site, use of well heads on site as indicated by the County Well Point Index. The landscape plan should show the use of native groundcover plants and trees, the berm area on the north should be looked at for effectiveness and the use of irrigation, and the City should re -focus on the priorities set forth in the current Surface Water management Plan review process so that the surface water issues were better understood in plan review sites such as Molin Concrete. Staff commented that it was not clear why the Environmental Board did not receive the submitted landscape plan. The landscaping plan was approved in 1997. The new plan was a revision of the previously approved plan, and the drought- resistant species have already been planted. Staff advised that no tree loss would occur from the proposed new building. The Rice Creek Watershed had granted its preliminary approval. A complete lighting plan would be a condition of approval before City Council review. Chemical use on the site was not changing, nor were any new wells being proposed.